Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A78413
|
Another word to purpose against The long Parliament revived. By C. C. of Grays-Inne, Esq;
|
Drake, William, Sir.
|
1660
(1660)
|
Wing C16; Thomason E1053_5; ESTC R207979
|
10,311
|
21
|
betray his Kingdom utterly refused to accept But this pusilanimous Prince of ours by the threats and perswasions of Pandulphus the Popes Commissary the next year Cum conmuni Concilio Baronum surrendâ—ed his Kingdoms of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent the III. and that he would hold his Crown from thenceforth as Fcodary to the Pope paying for both his Kingdoms 1000 Marks per annum which 1000 Maâ—ks with the arrearages was demanded by the Pope of wise King Edw. the 3d in the 4th year of his Raign who called a Parliament thereupon whose resolution was That the King could not do it without the consent of the Commons as appears Rot. Parl. 40. E. 3. Numb 8. an Act not yet Printed And though it was then resolved that it could not be done without the consent of the Commons which was to defeat the Kings Grant with the greatest colour yet it did not imply that he might do it with the consent of the Commons for in Rot. Parliamenti 42. E. 3. numb 7. upon further debate It was declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the dishâ—rison of the King his Crown whereunto they were sworn which late president I bring to prove the second respect before mentioned of the two Houses So then it follows that this Act this Idol which has been so much worshipped and which was the occasion of all our miseries was void as to the Kings Royal assent and also as to the assent of the two Houses provided I make it appear that ealling and dissolving of Parliaments is such a flower of the Crown as cannot be severed And for this I must acquaint you with the Antiquty of Parliaments and the manner of them I finde many conceits of their antiquity and many strains and conjâ—ctural inferences from dubious and incetain History of the antiquity of the Commons House but according to the clearest and most allowed course of story I affirm thus That Parliaments are of very ancient standing before the conquest but not such Parliaments as we have now for those consisted only of the King and his Nobles and not all the Nobles neither but such as the King was pleased to call and so it continued till the Raign of H. 1. in the 16th year of whose Raign was the first sitting of the Commons in Parliament which was occasioned thus H. the first was an Englishman and therefore feared the revolt of the Normans from him for they favoured his Brother Robert Duke of Normandy and he understanding that his own Country-men had a kindness and affection for him called the chief of them to his great Councel and did by that means settle himself sure in his Throne which I take for a good rule for other Kings Yet this manner of assembling was not alwayes continued since that time for sometimes the chief of the Nobility were onely Called and they at the end of the Parliament imparted to the other Barons and their Country what was done in Parliament afterwards King John ordained that all Barons of England should come in proper person to Parliament being summoned 20 Knights Fees after 20 l. a Fee going to the value of an entire County and fifteen Knights Feâ—s making an entire Baron by which they sate But King Hen 3d after he had smarted by the tumultuation of the Barons their multitudes bringing confusion ordained that those Earls and Barons onely to whom he directed his Writs should come to Parliament and none else Afterwards his Son Edw. 1. who indeed may be called the Founder of our civil Estate called such of the Barons as he pleased and omitted the rest and appointed the Knights and Burgesses to be Elected which is the first time that I reade of Election for before that when the Commons were called it was onely such of the chief of them as the King pleased And as it was setled in Edward the First 's time it continued till Edward the Third there being then in use a Writ de Admitten do fide dignos ad colloquium and so downwards of the special Grace and Favour of wise pious and Indulgent Kings it has continued to this day By this appears the extent of prerogative which attended our Kings in former days in relation to Parliaments and although latter times have by favour and indulgâ—nce won upon it yet it cannot be doubted but it is still as it is at this day a Flower of the Crown to Call Parliaments and consequently to Dissolve Parliaments which also is allowed by our Pamphleter fol. 7. for Quo aliquid constituitur dissolvitur and my Lord Cooke in several places affirms That it is against Natural Equity to oppose that Rule That that which Constitutes should not Dissolve and no man will deny but an Act of Parliament against Natural Equity is void and hear what Justice Dodderidge that learned man says in his Treatise of Parliaments That the King jure Regio as a Flower of his Crown hath the Absolute power of Calling and Dissolving of Parliaments as oft as he pleaseth which never yet was opposed Then it will follow upon the Reasons before mentioned That the King with the consent of the two Houses cannot grant it away then if he grant it away it remain'd in him after the signing of that Act so that That Act was not binding to him and by this all our Pamphleters Arguments are set a side And the rather aâ—e we to make the best and favourablest construction in this case because the signing of that Act was against his Royal Inclination being indeed compelled as it were thereto by the violent heady inconsiderate and rash pressures of those turbulent spirits which have so lately infested our Land and ungracioussy disturbed the Religious peace thereof But admitting that Act should be in its Creation obligatory yet it is to be considered First How far it is binding Secondly How long it is binding As to the first The Law is clear That an Act of Parliament may at its Creation binde generally but by reason of some unexpected consequents and future Events which inevitably or imminently import danger to the publick it may become of no force and this may be in the Case of common persons as the Statutes of Marlbridge and Glocester c. against Tenants committing waste in Houses or Lands generally yet in case of a fire in the neighbours house it is justifiable to pull down the house next and in case of wars against the Kings enemies it is lawful to make Bulwarks upon the Lands and many more Cases may be to this purpose Then a fortiori in the case of the King who is bound to preserve the Publick and in whose safety and in the just maintenance of whose Royal Native prerogative is lodged the intire Concern of the Common-wealth and this is sadly demonstrated to us by his late Majesties waving the execution of this undoubted part of his Royal
Prerogative for which I now labour whereby we have sorely felt and dearly undergone these unmatchable miseries wherewith these three Kingdoms have been so long and tediously exercised which is Argument enough to satisfie any reasonable and sober mind against the unreasonableness of it and to perswade them in their conscience That such an unheard of President should not innovate so much upon prerogative as to bind up the Kings Hands which should defend and preserve himself and his people and to make him stand still while his Loyal Subjects are Murdered before his face his own Throat cut before his Palace and the most horrid confusions that ever was heard of brought upon a Land before that time the most flourishing that ever was seen and all this fell out upon supposition of that Act being in force which the King might have waved for in the case of Ship-money though it was the better opinion that the King could not raise moneys but by Parliament generally yet in case of apparent danger to the Kingdom it was agreed by all the Judges of England that he might But then admitting it binding in its Creation the second thing is its duration how long it binds and for that its clear it can bind him no longer then he lives For that thus The intent of the Law-makers is to be observed in the exposition of the Laws Now we know full well that the makers of that Act never thought of the Kings death especially his Murder at the time of the making of that Act but that which was the moving cause of that Act from the Houses was the remembrance of the Kings breaking up of severall Parliaments before whereby some of the Members were prevented to vent their malicious and cruel designs upon some of the Kings loyal Favorites whom for their preferment they emulated as before on Buckingham and after upon incomparable Strafford by the Vanes Father and Son and this was under the notion of bringing Delinquents to punishment Others indeed more sober might have an eye to substantial grievances to be redressed and therefore desired that the King would not dissolve them till they were redressed But good reason for the Kings actions therein for he was advised of two Evils to chuse the least rather to dissolve twenty Parliaments and leave some particular Delinquents unpunished some particular grievances unredressed then by preserving one Parliament or more to dissolve the foundations of the Kingdom He was advised of the Jesuits plot which had been so long upon the Anvil against him which made him loath to consent to this fatal act which rendred him supposedly obnoxious to the fatal Axe so that though he was compelled in prudence to himself and policy to his Kingdoms to break up those Parliaments yet the profanum vulgus the ruder people and heady Commons would not understand it right but indeavoured to bind him up as sure as they could and that was by this Act which is the chief design signified in the preamble of that Act. What is mentioned beside in the same preamble is of no weight for his Majesties Army there spoken of ceased to be his by their rebellion his Majesties urgent occasions there mentioned were never intended to be satisfied and as for the credit of raising money surely an Act of Parliament might have raised money without borrowing or giving their security every one being thereby security for himself as well as by ingaging of their Publick Faith and that Act would have continued not onely after dissolution but after the Kings death without the help of this specious Act and that might have been made in as short a time as this so that the necessity of that Act which our Author mentions is like that of Don van Dosme who told the Workmen of a necessity of removing the Chimney because the fire burnt his shinns And as to the Conclusion of the Preamble that it might not be dissolved before sufficient provision was raised for repayment of the money borrowed if this should give a determination sure it were at an end before now there having been moneys enough to do that raised by that desperate piece of Sacriledge the Sale of Crown and Church-Lands Customes Excise and abominable Taxes But further to the Act it selfe There is another rule Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur Laws are made for relief of Common and obvious Grievances and to prevent the most probable and frequent accidents such was then that of breaking up Parliaments before mentioned And it cannot be intended that an Act of Parliament should provide against a thing at such distance should be introductory of a new Law should confound prerogative destroy the King and undo the people and all this by dubious and implicite words by a strange and novel construction the effects and consequents whereof are so incomparably dangerous and fatal to the Kingdome as has been before shewn and seen Lastly admitting further That the Kings death was intended by that Act yet was the Act void as to that and that upon this account If an impossibility be Enacted or if a thing which is possible at the time of the making of the Act become impossible by the act of God the Act ceases to be of force as to that And therefore as to the first If they had Enacted That at the time of the making of the same Act there was no King in England that had been void because impossible to be true that that should be an Act and that the King should not be at that time King whereas his being at that time King made that an Act. As to the other is our case admitting it possible that the Kings hands might be bound up yet the hands of the Law can't be bound up for the operation of Law upon the death of the King makes that impossible which before was supposed possible and therefore I am of opinion with clearness that if the Act had been That the Lords and Commons should be a Parliament to make Acts after the Kings death that it had been void and nonsence for they might as well have Enacted that Pauls Steeple should be Charing-Cross for its impossible that an Act should be without the Kings Royal assent and his consent cannot be after his death and there is no Clause that pretends to oblige his Successor to confirm or consent which our Pamphleter would have our King to do voluntarily and therefore tells out of my Lord Cooks 3d which should be his 4th Institutes That the King sits in Parliament in his Politick Capacity and in that capacity never dyes which is all true for he never dyes as to succession to avoid an Interregnum c. But as to continuances of Writs and Commissions c. which by his death are determined he dyes The King sits in the Court called the Kings Bench in his Politick Capacity yet by his death not onely the Judges Commissions in that Court but all proceedings there were